lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH] remove rq->lock from cpuacct cgroup (Was Re: [PATCH] cpuacct: add a branch prediction
From
Peter Zijlstra  wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 18:04 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 08:42 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Furthermore, if you want something like schedule_work_on() for each
>> >> cpu,
>> >> > there's schedule_on_each_cpu().
>> >> >
>> >> It can't pass arguments...Maybe I should use rq->lock here to reset
>> >> other cpu's value.
>> >
>> > Why bother with serializing the reset code at all?
>> >
>> I don't think reset v.s. read is problem but reset v.s. increment
>> (read-modify-write) can't be ?
>
> Sure, can be, do we care?
>
If small/easy code allows us to declare "there are any racy case!
and you don't have to check whether you successfully reseted",
it's worth to do I think.

Thanks,
-Kame




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-03 11:45    [W:0.086 / U:7.032 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site